From this morning's paper. I found this a really interesting read. I hope Kevin read it.:
Labor should look to Britain for lessons from New Labour
Maher Mughrabi
January 1, 2008/the AGE
FOR A Briton living in Australia, the 2007 federal election - the anxiety in the days leading up to the poll, the euphoria in some quarters that followed - stirred many memories of the accession of Tony Blair and "New Labour" a decade earlier.
Of course there are crucial differences. Voting is not mandatory in Britain, and at Westminster MPs are still elected on a first-past-the-post basis. The ALP's majority in Parliament bears no comparison with the 165-seat stranglehold New Labour gained in May 1997. But just as many conservatives in this country see Kevin Rudd's me-tooism as proof of John Howard's ultimate triumph in recasting the political landscape, so annihilated Tories a decade ago consoled themselves with the thought that Blair was far more Thatcher's child than socialism's.
Can Rudd and his team learn anything from the British experience? A number of potential pitfalls can be identified:
- Prime minister or president?: Much has been made of Howard's failure to consult on campaign strategy beyond an inner circle of advisers, such that by the time he asked his parliamentary party "is it me?", it was arguably too late.
In choosing his cabinet, Rudd made a virtue of his refusal to consult Labor's factions, but this places an onus on MPs to ensure that their leader does not get carried away.
It was astonishing to read Blair last June effectively blaming the media for the declining significance of Parliament, when he did so much as prime minister to move the conduct of political business outside Westminster's walls and make policy announcements direct to those same media.
One post-election letter writer to The Age's Green Guide claimed vindication for Rudd's refusal to appear on Jon Faine's 774 radio show. I was uncomfortably reminded of the constant refusal of Blair-era ministers to appear on the BBC's Newsnight program to talk, unscripted, about their policies.
Treating the media as a notice board, rather than an opportunity to explain and listen, would be a mistake, as would viewing MPs as a bloc of votes rather than a constituency.
- Dealing with dissent: New Labour's concern with remaining "on message" frequently led it into the most undignified and ham-fisted displays when confronted with internal opposition.
Having watched the Downing Street Goliath squander political capital trying to squash a succession of Davids - Rhodri Morgan in Wales, Dennis Canavan in Scotland and Ken Livingstone in London - only to be forced to accept each of them at the ballot box,
one can only hope that Rudd won't let the "co-operate or else" rhetoric boil over in his dealings with the states; it would be too easy for a federal leader to portray state Labor parties as parochial or self-interested.
Rough-and-tumble within politics is one thing, but when this sort of treatment is extended to civilians, it's a real turn-off. The Blair government's role in the events leading up to the death of WMD expert David Kelly nagged at the public's confidence, but it was when Walter Wolfgang - an old man who couldn't be demonised or spun away - was slung out of the 2005 party conference for heckling Jack Straw on Iraq, with security men citing anti-terror legislation, that people's anxiety crystallised; the Coalition experienced something very similar with the late Bernie Banton. Rudd shouldn't think for a moment that this sort of thing can't happen to him.
- Holy mysteries: Much was made of Blair's decision to become a Catholic, yet the media had been aware of this possibility since early 1998. When he was PM, the fuss was over the historical and constitutional implications. Yet this seems to me to miss the point.
During the 1997 election, Blair often preferred priestly purple to Labour red as a campaign backdrop. However, when (in 2003) an interviewer asked whether he prayed with George Bush, the usually voluble prime minister came over quite coy. Now we know that he believes talking about God in Britain gets you labelled "a nutter".
If faith did indeed play a pivotal role in Blair's premiership, I think he owed it to the electorate not only to tell them that it did but also how and when.
Rudd has also made much of the part faith has to play in his politics, citing the undoubted guts and principle of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. But simply holding up a paragon isn't enough.
If Rudd believes Labor's political decisions should be informed by Christianity, then he too should say when and how, so that (to paraphrase a speech he made at a Canberra book launch in 2006) those views can be argued, distilled and debated through a pluralist political system. Any other course invites the kind of speculation that undermines confidence in politicians.
- The deputy's predicament: Plenty of people were surprised when Julia Gillard was handed responsibility for employment and education.
I remembered Blair's deputy, John Prescott. Like Gillard, he was chosen as deputy to give his boss credibility with the "traditional" left and the unions; like her, after the election victory he was saddled with a colossal portfolio (environment, transport and the regions).
Prescott went from being a darling of his party to the face of government failure - a role Blair usurped only with his decision to invade Iraq.
If Gillard wants to keep her prospects intact, she needs to build as many bridges as she can within cabinet and beyond. The one connecting her to Rudd will fail in time.
Maher Mughrabi is a staff journalist.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/labor-should-look-to-new-labour-for-lessons/2008/01/01/1198949797402.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
)
